Do you have a physical sighting of this unit? It was last reported as being partially stripped at Russell, but with the power still on, and then a few days later it started tracking back in service. That sounds highly suspect, and I presume that, just like with 4242, someone neglected to reprogram the fleet number. Some visual confirmation would be nice, however.

To add: 4107 had ALRV wipers like 4043 did, and 4000 was displayed at the 1978 CNE.
Per Transit Toronto, "4113 was the first scheduled vehicle to depart Dufferin loop in 514 CHERRY service, at 7:45 a.m. on Sunday, June 19, 2016."
To that end, does anyone know which CLRV was the first one to run in revenue service? I know they entered service on Sep 30 1979 but to my knowledge I've never read which unit was the first to run.

Thank you for your words of support. I believe that I have applied to those particular jobs at the CBC, since they don't pop up terribly frequently, and I always apply to them when they do. Unfortunately, them (and the entire journalism industry, it seems) feels a bit like an exclusive club. Astonishingly difficult to break into if you don't have connections. haven't had so much as a single callback from anyone in the industry.
And yep, got tossed less than half an hour after my submisssion. They probably had the job lined up for a nephew of the edito r or somehing . Too bad they couldn't have given him the job before I spent a week on this.

Don't count on it until the last of the LFSes go into rebuild. Seeing as they were only delivered in 2016, you'll have a few years' wait still.
I mean... besides the livery there's not a lot of tangible differences between the 2015-16 Novas and what came after them. The new colours may be neat and flashy, but they're not exactly suffering by not getting buses in the new colours.

Until confirmation comes I will not be marking any more ALRVs as retired. We have 13 marked as not retired, but the service summary only indicates 10.
4242 has had its pole pulled down since at least October, by the way.

So I applied to a job at a newspaper, and a week ago I was told I had moved on to the next part of the application, which involved preparing a three part story package that involved five unique story pitches, writing one of them out, and then pitching two follow up stories.
Spent the last week preparing that package together, sent it off about a half an hour ago.
Have already been rejected.
Who even cares anymore?

What kind of a world would we live in if people could pursue legal actions against others for hanging up on them, closing the door in their face, or walking away?
Block the number, and sleep comfortably at night.

I feel like we're misunderstanding each other. I never said that 4001 couldn't be selected as a historical representative of the CLRV fleet, either in Toronto, or elsewhere. For as much as I know, it could end up being the last CLRV to exist in history.
Basket reported (whether right or wrong) that there are plans to scrap 4001 by the end of next month at Russell, and that they (Basket) were trying to keep that particular unit alive by convincing the big cheeses of streetcarland that the CLRVs are well loved by the general populace.
What fate awaits 4001 after it has stopped running in regular service is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that I don't think that the people in charge will suddenly decide not to retire that particular unit, based on that particular argument. Maybe that source knows something the general readership of this forum doesn't, like 4001 being in bad shape. That being the case, all the support in the world wouldn't be able to stop that unit from being scrapped. Like what happened with 4000.
On the other hand, 4001 could be saved, but again the reasoning for that particular unit being saved is going to be far more complex than "people like CLRVs".
All I'm saying is that "people like [vehicle]" isn't enough of a reason to stop any individual representative of that class from being scrapped, if it is not feasible to save. And that's the basis of my comments about 4041 too - there were a whole bunch of us that were rather fond of the car (not employees), but that was never going to be enough to stop it from being scrapped.

That's fair enough, but to what extent does this attitude translate into the way passengers receive the old clunkers that they have to ride to work every day? The New Looks, or PCCs, are disconnected enough from the modern commuting experience that they draw interest, but in my experience, most of the articles that have been published about the CLRV in recent time have been met with comments largely unfavourable to them. I'm sure a few years after the CLRVs have been retired, and the historical units start making their rounds around the city, then we'll start to see an upswing in appreciation for them among members of the general public, but while they continue to be king along Queen and Carlton, I'm personally skeptical. Most of the people whose opinions I've read on the internet just think of them as the 40 year old clunkers that freeze up in the winter and have no air-conditioning in the summer.
I don't know whether Basket has connections to the big cheeses in streetcarland, but surely, in the scenario that they posed above, 4001 wouldn't receive a reprieve just because they claim that a lot of Torontonians love the CLRV? The TTC is not going to renege on the CLRV scrapping program just because some people, somewhere, are fond of the cars.
Just another example of what I mentioned above. I'm sure that someone could've mentioned to the TTC big cheeses that 4041 was generally well liked among transit and nostalgia buffs, but it wouldn't have been particularly effective at reversing its fate.
What else factors into the decision? I get that preservationists will want cars in good condition instead of substandard heaps of garbage, but what else do their requirements have in common with a revenue service operation? They don't have to worry about passenger amenities or the like.

Is it? The most recent update we had from Dan was that they were still trying to decide whether to.
This argument wouldn't really work on anyone, I don't think. For one thing most Torontonians, outside of transit fans and nostalgia buffs, can't stand the CLRVs (as with every old vehicle), and for another, just because someone loves a vehicle doesn't mean that they will save one on that basis (otherwise 4041 would still be in tact). The fact of the matter is that the CLRVs are way overdue for retirement, and you can't save them all.
It's possible that one of the preservation folk may end up picking up 4001, but if they don't, it will fall to the scrapper, just like 4000, 4041, 4199, 4200, or 4251 have/will.
What do you mean? If the conversation is about preservation, then surely the criteria for taking a car from the TTC is going to be very different from someone running a regular revenue service operation. No one in their right mind would buy a second hand CLRV for a revenue service operation, but if it's a preservation group the criteria will be which of the cars is in the best condition following retirement.

This thread is to list ways you can identify transit fans from regular passengers.
You know you're a transit fan when...
-you are willing to suffer through a 9 hour round trip on a coach bus without air conditioning so that you can photograph Tatra streetcars in Bratislava
-related to above - you camp out at a transit stop for 40 minutes so that you can ride the oldest streetcars in the city
-after somebody insults your favorite transit vehicle, you feel like clubbing them
-you wake up at 4 or 5 AM so that you can maximize your amount of time in a far away city (related to first item), or so that you can take advantage of the vehicles out and about for morning rush

To my great astonishment, 4171 is tracking out on the 501 today. Would anyone be able to confirm whether this is the unit in question or if there was a TRUMP unit swap?
In addition, 4091 is on the 506.

This is getting obscene, guys. If 1772 is one of the hybrids set aside for driver training, and I presume it is, since it's tracking at the facility on North Queen right now, then it's very possible that it could've made a stop over at Queensway during the training process for any number of reasons. Dropping off personnel? Parts? Coffee break???
Just because a bus goes to a garage doesn't mean that it's going to be stored there, making this pissing contest all in vain.

I mean, even if you waived the requirement for something to be in the inner city so that many people can hit it up (which I don't buy for a second... there are plenty of participating locations outside of downtown), could they not have done Russell or Greenwood or Leslie as they did in the years past?

That's neither here nor there. Our elected officials don't give a rat's ass about transit (not exclusive to Ford), but by threatening to assassinate them on a public forum, you're just making yourself look childish and immature.

Unfortunately doing things the old fashioned way isn't really a viable way of keeping historical records. Imagine if no one ever wrote down that the first PCC entered service on September 23, 1938? Or that the first of the CLRVs arrived on December 29, 1977? Those are both vehicles we have very incomplete initial data about. I personally would love to know when each PCC or CLRV was delivered. So people keeping notes of contemporary vehicles and when they arrive or enter service are doing good work.